Twenty-Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time – a reflection on the Sunday readings

Today’s first reading from Genesis is an extract from the second creation story in this first book of the Bible. In today’s gospel-reading, we hear Jesus referring to the two creation stories that appear in the first two chapters of Genesis. Over the time I have been writing these Sunday reflections, I have noted that Genesis is a very early excursion into theology combined with the writer’s understanding of humankind and what motivates human behaviour. The theological dimension of the early part of Genesis is an attempt by the writer, undoubtedly a man, to explain some of the distinguishing characteristics of God. Through skilled story-telling, he asserted, after reflection on God’s handiwork, that God is good, creative, loving and free. And that, made in the image of God, human beings are also good, creative loving and free, be it to a lesser extent. Moreover, the author of Genesis, following his reflection on the created world and its inhabitants, concluded that the very purpose of God’s creativity was the sharing of life. In the course of today’s gospel-reading, we hear Jesus pointing out that human beings, made in God’s likeness, are made to share something of the love and life of God.

As we come to focus our attention on today’s gospel-reading, it’s important to note that all four Evangelists have recorded numerous attempts, made by scribes, Pharisees and other religious leaders, to trick Jesus into misinterpreting the Law of Moses and making heretical statements that they might later cite as evidence for condemning him as a fraud and charlatan. The failure of their repeated efforts to best him can lead to only one conclusion: they were exceptionally slow learners! Invariably, they ended up biting off more than they could chew. To mix the metaphors, it is probably true to say that they hadn’t done their homework as well as they might have. They had come to Jesus looking for an opinion on how a man might go about filing for a legitimate divorce. We have to remember that divorce at the time of Jesus, and ever since the time of Moses, was not an unusual practice. However, only a man would sue to divorce his wife. The prevailing culture regarded women as the property of their husbands, and teachers of the Law were often consulted by husbands seeking to divorce their wives for arguments they might present in order for the divorce they requested to be officially approved. Some legalists insisted that a divorce could be granted only on the grounds of infidelity on the woman’s part. Other lest-strict adjudicators approved a divorce if the man was able to demonstrate that his wife was an inept cook. Others, still, accepted a statement from the man as insignificant as that he no longer found his wife useful around the house or attractive to him.

The Pharisees who had accosted Jesus in today’s gospel-reading, while they, like so many others, doubted that a creditable rabbi might ever come out of Nazareth, had failed to check out Jesus’ family history. They seemed to be unaware of the fact that Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus, had seriously considered seeking a divorce when he discovered that Mary was pregnant with Jesus.

Instead of answering the blunt question the Pharisees had put to him, Jesus launched into a lesson on genealogy and a dissertation on the theology of every human person’s being made in the image and likeness of God. He capped his teaching off by stating that all humans are social creatures who cannot survive without relationship with and the support of one another. In his elucidation of the first two chapters of Genesis, he quoted both creation stories, stressing that from the very beginning God had created both males and females in God’s image and that they were meant for one another as equals: “From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. This is why a man must leave father and mother, and the two become one body. They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has united, man must not divide” (Mark 10: 6-9 & Genesis 1: 27; 2: 24).

Worthy of note is the fact that Mark recorded no come-back from the Pharisees who posed their question to Jesus in the first place. Was he implying that they were defeated in their attempt to corner Jesus or simply stunned by the depth of Jesus’ wisdom? We are left to guess.

However, we cannot stop here. The gospel-reading concludes with Jesus’ response to his disciples after they had continued discussing with him in private the topic of divorce. Jesus asserted that divorcees, who have remarried, are guilty of adultery against their former spouses. In this context, we cannot ignore that neither the Jews of Jesus’ time nor members of the earliest Christian communities ceased to practice divorce. We may ask how they interpreted Jesus’ remarks about adultery. They were able to interpret as hyperbole his warnings about the need to poke out one’s eyes or to sever limbs if they became instruments of sin. Did they regard his comments about adultery as equally belonging to the category of hyperbole? Eventually, the Christian community at large came to recognise that when one or other party in a marriage was at serious risk of physical or emotional harm, then separation was necessary, with no approval to remarry.

At the bottom of today’s gospel-reading, complemented by the first reading from Genesis, is the very clear message, that, made in the image of God, we are meant to receive the love given to us freely by God and to reflect that love to one another. Those who choose the vocation of marriage have a unique opportunity to give and receive love through the union that binds them together as wife and husband. That said, whatever vocation we choose has to be a free choice; whatever we choose, we are made for love.